dazz
Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,14:58) | [quote=dazz,Oct. 12 2015,07:51] | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,14:41) | | Quote (NoName @ Oct. 12 2015,07:19) | | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,21:29) | | standing of the process and products of science. |
You are becoming crazy, like dazz! lol!
1, About Peer-Review. I don't care about the peer-reviewers since they did not understand my new discoveries. If you want to see the documentary, I've written a book about this and you can see the e-mails that we had made..and see for yourself! You had never seen my manuscripts! LOL!
2. About science books. Yes. If your science is really correct and if you have a nerve or confidence to say that I am wrong and you are right, you should write book about that and publish it. But of course, you must include at least one experiment showing that your version of "intelligence" is right! BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA of the topic of intelligence and you rant a lot!
LOL! |
How about this "experiment"?
Problem: Drop an egg and keep it from breaking.
Solution: Put ONE piece of rag below.
Result: The egg doesn't break
You run this same "experiment" and you concluded that because you were "intellen" and you found a solution with more that one paper tissue, then multiple solutions implied "intellen"
I run the same experiment and I concluded the opposite: that one solution is "intellen"
Hence, you are disproved with your own "experiment"
Can you take down your books now please? Thank you |
Good!
But that experiment had violated the rules of nature, the very nature that we've been talking to: eat and hungry.
Hungry is problem, eat is solution ...symmetry
egg is problem...rag is solution...symmetry...thus, you made just an instinct and not intelligence...
Thus, I will never delete all my science books! |
The experiment did not violate the "rules of nature".
Experiments are meant to test rules, and this one was meant to test your "rules of nature" and lo and behold, your rules didn't pass the test. So your rules are debunked.
Or you mean to tell me that there's no conceivable experiment that could ever disprove your theory?
|
